발행글 수정

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:true, idempotentHint:true. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying that published status is maintained, omitted fields preserve existing values, draft IDs are rejected, and public posts may become private without VELOG_ALLOW_PUBLIC=1. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each contributing distinct information: the core action, the partial-update rule, and the public/private config caveat. Uses bold for emphasis on retention semantics and star for critical warning. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

As a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: target resource (published posts), partial-update semantics, restrictions (draft ID rejection), and configuration-dependent visibility change. Return value isn't described, but that's acceptable given no output schema and the mutation context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description's key rule '생략한 필드는 기존 값을 그대로 유지한다' (omitted fields keep existing values) applies to all parameters, giving meaningful semantics beyond the schema. This compensates for the low coverage by establishing partial-update behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with '이미 발행된 글을 수정한다' (modifies an already published post), clearly identifying the verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from draft updates by referencing velog_update_draft, making sibling distinction clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states when to use (published posts), when not to (draft IDs are rejected), and the alternative (velog_update_draft). It also provides critical context about partial update semantics and the VELOG_ALLOW_PUBLIC environment variable requirement for keeping posts public.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.